Ladies, you are just too stupid

[Bricker]

@Bryan_Ekers

I do, but I’d be referencing an earlier thread in which you participated which is further complicated by me using a smartphone in a place with very shaky Internet access, limiting my ability to search/copy/paste. As a result, I cannot immediately cite this so I’ve no problem with it being dismissed out of hand.

The gist stems from your comments on mandatory ultrasounds, after I suggested the patient need not be subjected to the procedure herself but simply have available to her ultrasound images of someone else’s pregnancy at a roughly similar stage of development. As I recall, you felt that insufficient. The woman had to be able to see her OWN fetus, in order to imcrease the chances of emotionally manipulating her into bonding with it and deciding not to abort.

That’s not really correct. The Wisconsin law we were discussing in 2013 clearly mandated “No person may require a pregnant woman to view the ultrasound images that are required to be displayed for and reviewed with her or to visualize any fetal heartbeat. No person, including the pregnant woman, may be subject to any penalty if the pregnant woman declines to view the displayed ultrasound images or to visualize any fetal heartbeat.”

And you knew that, and knew I didn’t favor making her look:

@Bryan Ekers in 2013

Well, Bricker thinks the 24 hours is necessary, but also that the woman shouldn’t be forced to look at the sonogram results, so I sense an inconsistency. If she doesn’t look, why make her wait? And if the 24-hour wait is no big deal, why have it at all?

@Bryan Ekers in 2017

I think I can reasonably draw from this that you believe SOME women are stupid in the sense that no matter what circumstances prompted her to consider abortion initially, her lady-feelings will prevail.

You’re wrong, but only because you either did not see, or do not remember, Part II of that discussion. As it happens, I said that if I were to learn after some period of time that seeing such images did not significantly reduce the number of abortions, I would concede that the assumptions underlying the requirement were flawed and I would no longer support it.

And in fact, that’s exactly what happened.

@Bricker in 2014

The study says that a small number of women did change their minds:

So there is a tiny difference – maybe not even significant statistically.

What I said at the time was that I expected a significant number…I might have tossed out 25%. If it had been, say, ten percent, I might have made a case that the benefit still outweighed the imposition on liberty.

But this, I concede, was not. I have only read the abstract, so I may reverse my opinion again if the study methodology is flawed in some way, but based on this evidence, I agree: the law is not justified.